|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:46 pm |
 |
|
|
|
 | |  |
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:56 pm |
|
|
| batgeek |
|
|
| |
|
| Joined: 23 Jan 2002 |
| |
| Location: Suffolk VA |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Quote:
Xayd wrote:
so you're saying the second amendment, since it is clearly tied to the necessity of a military, only applies to 'able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45, or women currently enlisted in the national guard'?
and therefore the right to bear arms is exempted from everyone else?
quick, hem yourself into scalia's box, he needs lots of help in there.
yes i know Osckar. just want to play with xayd for a bit.
i'm just defining the militia's part in this.
now what part of "the People" do you not understand? the militia is made from the People, but the People is not restricted to the militia. what is so hard for you to understand about that? |
|
Last edited by batgeek on Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:13 pm; edited 2 times in total
_________________
Seau lvl40 kobold cave shaman - [Ceaseless], Uthgard
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:09 pm |
|
|
| Riastlin |
| Lost in the Void |
|
| |
|
| Joined: 06 May 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just shocked that they were still having so many murders in Chicago. I'm sure they were all stabbings and beatings though since nobody could legally have a gun.  |
|
_________________
Riastlin Leafdancer
50 Eld -- Retired until further notice
"It's an evil fucking room."
"I'm a lead farmer Mother Fucker!"
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Quote:
batgeek wrote:
Quote:
Xayd wrote:
so you're saying the second amendment, since it is clearly tied to the necessity of a military, only applies to 'able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45, or women currently enlisted in the national guard'?
and therefore the right to bear arms is exempted from everyone else?
quick, hem yourself into scalia's box, he needs lots of help in there.
yes i know Osckar. just want to play with xayd for a bit.
i'm just defining the militia's part in this.
now what part of "the People" do you not understand? the militia is made from the People, but the People is not restricted to the militia. what is so hard for you to understand about that?
sorry, it's you who do not understand.
for over 75 years 'the people' have had the right to regulate weapons. the national firearms act was passed in 1934, to restrict access to what were at the time called "gangster weapons" (machine guns, sawed off shotguns, etc.)
A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.
the above restriction on those weapons was upheld in 1939 in US v Miller.
Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seems to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below. We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed.
there is no wholesale granting of the right to firearms to 'the people' without the link to military function.
that was the law for almost a century, until scalia, with no constitutional basis, conjured a new law.
hint: when a bad supreme court justice who likes to state that things aren't in the constitution when they plainly are as a basis for his legal theory has to start writing centuries-old opinions from other countries into a majority opinion, that's what you might call 'grasping at straws'.
the link to 'militia' is there, plain as day. any writing on behalf of politicians from the constitutional era will clearly link military and militia, since there was a wholesale disregard for standing armies. absent military use, there is no right to own guns in the constitution that is beyond restriction by congress or the states.
there is only the right that scalia made up. |
|
Last edited by Xayd on Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:40 am |
|
|
| Riastlin |
| Lost in the Void |
|
| |
|
| Joined: 06 May 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is Xayd, you do not need to be a member of the military to be a part of the militia as previously mentioned.
Our country was founded on the principle that if the government abuses its power the people have the right to rise up and remove that government. The reason they were able to do this is because they had access to weapons.
Now, that being said, I will agree that I don't think the constitutional framers were considering the idea of needing a firearm in order to defend yourself against a burglar/rapist/murderer/etc. Of course, that is largely because the crime rate (at least the violent crime rate) was a lot lower then and they probably had no idea that it would ever get as bad as it is today. However, if you asked them "Does Farmer Bob over there have the right to own a gun?" They would not have said "I dunno, is he in the militia?" They would have said "Yes."
All of this being said, the Chicago ban was just a silly law to begin with. Cities with strict gun control laws generally have the highest violence rates. Keep in mind that while this law was in effect, there was actually talk of calling up the National Guard to Chicago in order to enforce the peace and protect the people, because crime was so out of control (including shootings). Obviously these must have just been really long range rifles shot from outside the city. |
|
_________________
Riastlin Leafdancer
50 Eld -- Retired until further notice
"It's an evil fucking room."
"I'm a lead farmer Mother Fucker!"
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:59 am |
|
|
|
Quote:
Riastlin wrote:
Cities with strict gun control laws generally have the highest violence rates.
no, they don't. that's an NRA marketing myth. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:26 am |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
i don't disagree with you that they're not, by and large, lawfully possessed. but they are obtained locally when you're talking about local criminals.
if you remove legitimate ownership of handguns within an area you eventually eliminate the sources for the stolen ones.
IRA terrorists walking the streets of belfast with armalite made weapons weren't in "lawful possession" either, but that didn't stop a US company from getting the guns and bullets to them.
i find it utterly hilarious, btw, that conservatives preach the virtues of going after foreign drug lords to cut off narcotic supplies and then point to the common local drug dealer with a machine gun as if he is the only link in the criminal chain that caused a ghetto shooting.
hypocrisy at its finest right there.
put a tax stamp on every gun like states do with booze/tobacco and you'll quickly root out the criminals who deal with the gun lobby (of which there are many). what you'll find is a ghetto supplier who's also a white supremacist supplier who's also a frequent NRA/gun show event attendee.
as for the violent crime rates, there are dozens of industrialized countries without private gun ownership that have vastly lower murder rates than the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita |
|
Last edited by Xayd on Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:51 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:07 pm |
|
|
| Greyphantom |
|
|
| |
|
| Joined: 15 Jan 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________
Greyphantom/Greyartil (GM) Odin's Souls
Legendary Armorcrafter/Alchemist
-----------Proudly!
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:42 pm |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:20 pm |
|
|
|
Quote:
Greyphantom wrote:
Quote:
Xayd wrote:
Quote:
Riastlin wrote:
Cities with strict gun control laws generally have the highest violence rates.
no, they don't. that's an NRA marketing myth.
Really? 32 murders in a weekend with strict gun control? Myth?
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704117.html
no US city has gun control laws worth noting. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:52 am |
|
|
| Osckar |
|
|
| |
|
| Joined: 16 Jan 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Our country was founded on the principle that if the government abuses its power the people have the right to rise up and remove that government. The reason they were able to do this is because they had access to weapons.
i disagree entirely and find this to be a rather distorted myth of the founding of the government.
our government was founded on the principle that we must be wary and skeptical of centralized government power, which is why the bill of rights specifically were designed to limit federal government power. it wasn't until nearly a century later after the civil war did the 14th amendment actually incorporate most of the bill of rights to the states.
the 2nd amendment in particular was designed for states to form militias against the federal government - in no way was the 2nd designed as a personal right to form any militia to combat state governments. hence why we had such a rivalry of political philosophy with federalists and anti federalists. the founding of the country was focused on, much like the problems today, of the states powers vs federal powers.
i mean, we didn't remove any government either. we split from the monarch. we didn't invade england and remove the king - we told him to go fuck himself and his taxes, and he came after us. i am not quite sure where we got this idea that we are the people that "remove" authoritative governments. that would be france, who have reformed their republic like half a dozen times in the last two centuries.
the translation of conservatives on the court that the 2nd amendment is an individual "fundamental right" has almost zero historical support. it simply doesn't exist.
but, it's also not wholly inconsistent with the constitution either. over time, at least, the 2nd has morphed really into what used to be prohibiting the federal gov't from banning weapons to crack down on state militias to an individual right of self defense. i think most people agree that the freedom to arm yourself from the dangers of the world is a rational consideration.
i just don't like someone trying to bullshit me and then trying to call it rainbow sprinkles. lets at least be upfront about it and readily identify that we are making a brand new interpretation here. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:00 am |
|
|
| Greyphantom |
|
|
| |
|
| Joined: 15 Jan 2004 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________
Greyphantom/Greyartil (GM) Odin's Souls
Legendary Armorcrafter/Alchemist
-----------Proudly!
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Palomides Community Forum Index -> Politics |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
|
|
|
|
